Accept That People Will Say (and Do) the Dumbest Things

I was interviewing a candidate for the entry-level construction position for which we hire about 30-40 people a month. As I was going over his application, I realized that he had not indicated a reason for leaving his most recent position. So, of course, I asked him. Here is the answer that I received: "Well, I was working in the ditch with another employee, and he was really getting on my nerves with his humming. I told him that if he didn't shut up, I was going to hit him over the head with the shovel and bury him. They fired me. But I think he just took it the wrong way."

* * *

One of the questions I ask at an interview is, "What is it about your favorite supervisor that made him or her your favorite?" One gentleman said, "He always covered for me." I then asked him, "What do you mean by that?"

"Well, when I was late or hung over he would come up with a good story to tell everyone."

* * *

One of my recruiters had called in sick and asked me if I could do a couple of interviews that they already had scheduled for the day. The candidates coming in were interviewing for a call center position. Right after lunch I was called to the reception area, because I had a candidate waiting for an interview. When I got to the lobby, I introduced myself and asked her to follow me to one of the interview rooms. We sat down and began the interview. Everything was going fine, and then I asked the question that I always asked every candidate at the end of the interview: "If you could change anything about yourself, what would you change?" I usually ask this question because people give answers that they do not realize would be harmful in an interview, such as "I wish I did not procrastinate as much" or "I wish I was more organized," and so on. This particular candidate looked at me and replied, "I would go and get implants so I could have a bigger rack." At first I just sat there stunned, and then I quickly opened the office door, thanked her for coming, and showed her out. Ever since that day, I have changed my question to "if you could change anything about yourself at work, what would you change?"

The hardest part of this whole experience was trying to keep from looking straight at her chest after her response and keeping my composure.

* * *

I represent a government entity that manages all criminal records, civil records, and court transactions. I once had a woman come to my office and ask for an application. She said she thought this would be a great place to work after having seen what our employees do in the court room on frequent occasions. To make conversation as she filled out the application, I asked what had brought her to the courtroom so frequently. She then proceeded to tell me that she had been charged with several criminal offences and thought that this would be a great place for her to work, since she already knew all about court.

* * *

When checking an applicant's background for a job at our local courthouse, I learned that the person had a warrant for her arrest for stealing at the bank from which she was just terminated. Imagine applying for a job at the courthouse when you have a warrant for your arrest!

* * *

I was working for a company that owns thousands of restaurants in a chain. I received a call about a night-shift manager at one of our stores who had done several odd things. First, she locked the doors to the restaurant prior to closing time. Second, she sat there in the lobby while customers banged on the doors from outside. Third, she was making out with her boyfriend in the lobby while customers stood outside. Fourth, she was walking around the store putting curses on the employees and telling them their eyes were going to bleed.

I traveled to the store and met with the manager to take her statement. She didn't deny anything, but it was her explanation that blew me away: "Well, you see, I'm a werewolf, and it was a full moon last night. I was starting to itch, and that's why this happened.

I stepped away from the table and called our corporate attorney who, upon hearing my story, put the telephone down and started laughing out loud. She confirmed that there was no legal protection for a werewolf. A witch, yes, she said, but not a werewolf.

I returned to the table and told the manager that I thought she should resign her employment at that time, or else risk being terminated for cause. She resigned without incident.

* * *

By now, you're probably thinking, "They made these up." But we didn't. You may even have had similar experiences or, at least, ones that are just as wacky. The question is not, "Why do candidates and employees say and do such things?" Rather, the question for HR professionals is, "How can I learn to spot the hidden signs and 'red flags' before we hire them?"

Many of us have been taught that we must carefully screen applicants' backgrounds for criminal records, substance abuse, poor attendance, substandard work performance, harassment complaints, and other potential problems in the workplace. We know that the "tests" for these potential performance problems must be job-related, and that the methods we use must be face-neutral, reliable, and valid. But how can you screen for antisocial behavior or for people who think they are werewolves?

Strong vs. Weak Situations

Thirty years ago, psychologist Walter Mischel described the way people decide how they should behave by describing the extent to which they pay attention to their immediate surroundings. He found that when the situation was very clear about how someone should act, the person followed the situational cues very well and acted accordingly. For example, if a person came into the room you are in right now and shouted, "Fire!" most people in the room would clearly know to exit the room as quickly as they could without being told. In other words, Mischel called this a "strong" situation — that is, the situation itself strongly suggests how one should behave.

However, when the situation does not send clear messages about how to behave, or sends no messages at all, people tend to rely on their own personalities or innate tendencies to guide their behavior. Imagine that at some time in your life you have arrived at a party or gathering, only to find that you are underdressed or overdressed in comparison with the other guests there. Or, you have entered the party, only to realize that you don't know anyone there, so you are not sure what appropriate conversations might be. These examples present what Mischel called "weak" situations: the situational cues are ambiguous, the behavioral options are many. In these situations people who are not sensitive to situational or social norms tend to show their true colors.

Interestingly, job interviews can be considered "weak" situations, particularly if candidates haven't interviewed in a while or are interviewing in a completely different organizational culture than they have been used to. Consider this story we received:

I am a recruiter for a national civil engineering firm. We had slated a job interview for a staff-level professional for 7:00 a.m. and, due to traffic, I was late. Our candidate was early. Andrew, the office manager, was already hard at work, but was kind enough to meet and greet our candidate until I arrived. As soon as I entered the building I saw him. Our candidate was already chomping on a wad of gum, had his tie half undone, and had on a rather loud and colorful sports jacket. I immediately took our candidate to a conference room and offered him a drink. He requested a soda and proceeded to follow me to the vending machine. He saw that all we had were Pepsi products and voiced his concerns that we didn't have Coke products. We settled on a Pepsi. I have seen this on television, but never in person: the candidate popped open the soda and drank it down like a beer at a frat party. It was gone in 30 seconds. Once he finished, it was as if he had just consumed two high-energy drinks. He was all wound up. "So when do I start?" I proceeded to explain to him that we needed to complete the interview process before we could make any decisions on starting.

After interviewing him, I asked if he had any questions. "What are the bennies?" he asked. "Bennies?" I replied. "You know vacation, holiday pay, medical coverage?" I gave him a quick overview; however, in the middle of the dental coverage explanation, he interrupted and told me that it was great that we had dental, because he needed a filling and a loose tooth fixed.

Clearly, such behavior speaks to an inability to understand the situational context or, more likely, it reveals a complete disregard for the accepted norms of behavior for a professional context (and maybe any context). Fortunately, he wasn't hired.

Sometimes, however, the HR professional ignores clear signs of "social stupidity":

A well-respected vendor for our organization referred a potential job candidate to our VP of Sales. Both the VP and HR interviewed the candidate, and we subsequently hired him for an outside sales position. The new employee, who I'll call "Keith," worked for a week and then came to our corporate offices for orientation. The VP went on several sales calls with him during his first week, and all seemed well.

Several seconds after meeting me for the first time, Keith told me that I should expect a call from the hotel he stayed in the night before "because, well, I didn't party like a rock star, but nearly..." He told me that he was really sorry and that it wouldn't happen again. I said, "Good, it better not," and we proceeded into my office and started the orientation. Five minutes into it, Keith started fishing around in his briefcase. He pulled out a coffee pack, the kind you get in hotel rooms, and interrupted me by holding it out and saying, "Here, I want you to have this. You should try it. It's really good!" I looked at him like he was nuts, but he simply said, "It's OK, I have more! I stole a whole box of them off a housekeeping cart."

The company, unfortunately, did not read Keith's behavioral cues very well either, because they hired him, only to terminate him shortly afterward in light of additional evidence for his lack of "social intelligence."

Finding Skeletons

It is likely that you may already do reference and background checks and, if so, they are often revealing if the sources are reliable ones. One problem, however, is that not every reference given by the candidate will provide objective, accurate information. Additionally, some references will not give any information, and not all organizations can afford extensive background investigations. So what can be done to find out some of these "hidden" problems?

One way to accomplish this is to use the references given by the candidate as network points. That is, use the contact given to you as the primary reference to ask for another reference. Usually, if there are actual issues with a candidate, the primary reference will probably not provide adequate information, primarily because the candidate would not have provided the contact if he or she thought the reference would give out any negative information. However, contacting the reference and asking to be referred to another co-worker, customer, client, supervisor, etc., will take you one level deeper in your investigation. Another strategy is to contact someone that is not listed as a reference, but who you may know is affiliated with the organization or candidate (e.g., a board member you may know or a member of a professional organization, like the local SHRM chapter). Both of these approaches may provide more accurate information about the candidate's behavior, judgment, and skill sets.

One HR person we know who routinely hires retail sales clerks makes it a point of using a friend as a "secret shopper" at the store where someone she is considering hiring currently works. Her friend gives his impression on the sales clerk's demeanor, helpfulness, and product knowledge. It isn't necessarily fool-proof, but it is another source of information about a candidate's public image and sales potential.

Background checks have become particularly popular. However, there are very few truly free sources of public records. Moreover, employers have very limited access to such records, and this makes getting a clear picture of a candidate less reliable. Many employers do credit checks of potential employees, but research has shown very little connection between a person's credit history and subsequent job performance or on-the-job behaviors. The job-relatedness of credit background checks is problematic, at best.

Interestingly, there are only four kinds of criminal records that belong to the free public access category: arrest records, criminal court records, corrections records, and state criminal repository records. In most states, there are very specific procedures that employers must follow in order to obtain and use these records. In addition, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is the federal law that governs how most background information on applicants and employees can be obtained and used. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the agency that enforces the FCRA, has prepared a document that can clarify how to access information from these records. It is titled, Notice to Users of Consumer Reports: Obligations of Users Under the FCRA, and is available on the Internet.

Using the Internet for Applicant Screening

With the increased availability of data on the Internet, it is no wonder that using a basic search engine like Google can provide some immediate knowledge about an applicant you may be considering. In addition, online background services that are reasonably priced, such as Intelius and US Search, can provide you with any amount of background information; however, as mentioned before, not all of it would be considered job-related, so be careful in using these services.

Some employers, and perhaps you are one, have begun to use sites like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter to assess the social appropriateness and competency of candidates. Career-Builder's most recent survey, completed in June 2009 by Harris Interactive, has interesting statistics on the number of employers who report that they currently use social media sites, such as Facebook and LinkedIn, to research potential job candidates. Of the 2,667 respondents to the 2009 survey, 45 percent reported that they used social media, which more than doubled from the 22 percent reported in the 2008 survey. An additional 11 percent reported that they planned to start using social media as a background check tool.

While it is not illegal to search these sites, be aware that use of the information to make a hiring decision can be a violation of the FCRA. For example, just like using a credit report to deny employment, the FCRA requires that before denying employment based on information gleaned from these sites, employers must verify the information and provide the applicant with an opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the information presented on the social media site. Moreover, the denial of employment based on the information must still be job-related. In addition, using information gleaned online about an applicant's age, marital status, race, religion, or disability could invite a discrimination lawsuit.

How to Discover Social Ineptitude in Candidates

By now you are probably wondering whether there is anything else human resources can do to spot these potential problems before they become a part of your organization and a headache for you. The bad news is that you probably can't avoid all of the problem employees. The good news is that you can identify some problematic personal characteristics, such as social ineptitude, by directly assessing the emotional intelligence (EI) of applicants.

The term "emotional intelligence" is generally credited to Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, who described emotional intelligence as a "form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action."

Everyone has some level of emotional intelligence, just the way everyone has some level of general intelligence. Many organizations commonly use the Wechsler Intelligence Test as a selection device to measure basic abilities and general intelligence; however, few use any method to measure the emotional intelligence of applicants, and those that do generally only use it for management positions. This is unfortunate, since one's ability to interact with others appropriately is generally an unstated requirement in almost all jobs.

At the very basic level of emotional intelligence is the ability to identify one's own emotions, feelings, and thoughts. At this level, though we may be aware of what we feel, we may not be aware of what others feel, nor may we be particularly adept at choosing appropriate behavioral expressions of our emotions. For example, in the first story, our construction worker felt angry at his co-worker's continual humming. This, in and of itself, isn't the central problem. The problem comes in his choice of expression that he'd like to "hit him over the head and bury him." In essence, by this comment he indicates a poor ability to process his emotions appropriately.

A second level allows us to use emotions to prioritize our thinking, directing our attention to information that helps us to solve problems and to consider multiple viewpoints and solutions. Our construction worker, had he possessed a bit more of this ability, might still have felt anger at his co-worker's humming, but he would have chosen, instead, to focus on the fact that he had to work with this individual. In other words, he would not have let anger determine his behavior. This would have allowed him to seek a different, more rational solution and, most likely, he would have kept his job.

At the highest level, we are able to analyze and regulate our emotions so that we do not demonstrate wild mood swings. By regulating and moderating our emotions, we are able to avoid repressing or exaggerating information we wish to convey. Our construction worker, at this level of emotional intelligence, would have been able to express his displeasure with his co-worker's humming constructively and calmly without making such a dramatic and unregulated emotional statement.